I have another question about the review of miopen [1][2] but this time it's about the upstream's use of pre-generated binary files. The miopen upstream includes many compressed binaries (pretty much one per supported GPU architecture) which, according to their documentation, are tuning values meant to give its auto-tuning feature a good place to start from [3] in order to boost initial performance. As I write this, there is not a fully documented way to generate those tuning values at build time but we could just not include those tuning values if we accept the performance hit that would entail. A ticket has been filed upstream asking for an alternative to using the pre-built binary files [4] which has explained some of the process. My question is: do these binary files fall into the category of "If the content enhances the OS user experience, then the content is OK to be packaged in Fedora."? At the moment, my assumption is that the binary files are not allowed if the build process is not completely documented. If the build process is documented, they could be allowed but building/optimizing from scratch at package build time would be preferred. I would appreciate insight that folks may have. Thanks, Tim [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261201 [2] https://github.com/ROCm/MIOpen [3] https://github.com/ROCm/MIOpen/blob/develop/docs/perfdatabase.md [4] https://github.com/ROCm/MIOpen/issues/2742 -- _______________________________________________ packaging mailing list -- packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to packaging-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/packaging@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
